Cosmology

November 28, 2015

Tiger Zhang, an independent scholar in Shanghai, China sent the following paper, which is the English version of a paper published in Chinese Journal of Spectroscopy Laboratory, No.3, Volume 26, 2009.

The paper re-analyses Einstein's thought experiments on moving observers and comes to a quite different conclusion. The concept is that each planet, star and galaxy creates its own local medium body, and that those bodies or spheres of influence are separate but interact with each other. Those spheres of influence are real physical spaces with their own characteristics, not "inertial reference frames" as Einstein postulated.

This is the best analysis of those Einsteinian concepts on relative velocities I have seen, and so I would like to share it here.

From the conclusion of the paper:

"There is no perfect vacuum space in the universe. Medium consisting of particles always exists between the wave source and the receiver. The theory of relativity, based on the concept of perfect vacuum, is wrong and meaningless in physics."

May 28, 2013

In a recently published book titled "The Progression of Time - How the expansion of space and time forms our world and powers the universe", C. Johan Masreliez, a retired Engineer passionate about physics and cosmology, introduces the concept of a fifth dimension beyond four-dimensional spacetime.

The Scale Expanding Cosmos (SEC) model overcomes some serious limitations of the Standard Cosmological Model. It eliminates the need for a Big Bang creation-out-of-nothing event at the beginning of the universe that is making today's cosmology little more than an article of faith. It explains what motion is and how time progresses. Inertia becomes understandable, being modeled in the SEC theory as a curvature of the 4-dimensional space-time continuum, in a manner very similar to how Einstein describes gravity in his General Theory of Relativity.

The dynamically expanding scale dimension explains the seemingly endless energy supply of the universe, saving us from gradual decline into an ignominious heat death. It also resolves several of the paradoxes of Einstein's Special Relativity and provides a stable cosmic frame of reference, something Einstein could never quite get to grips with, in addition to allowing Quantum Theory to be derived from the equations of General Relativity.

Quite a revolution in our understanding of the universe, the new model might have a hard time gaining acceptance by physicists, but it is an important step in advancing our understanding of the mechanics of the things physics is supposed to explain.

October 1, 2012

In this video, Nassim Haramein discusses his research into the structure of space, matter and the universe. He challenges some of the 'everybody knows' parts of physics and proposes a unification of two theories which have so far been thought to be incompatible.

June 18, 2010

Something is wrong with our view of the universe as propagated by physicists around the world. The contradictions are glaring and the sums don't add up. And yet - we are told that red-shifted light from the stars is evidence of a continuous expansion of the universe, an expansion that started with a primordial explosion or big bang, and that is still going on to this day.

Big Bang 'afterglow' or thermal anisotropy of the universe?

Robert Neil Boyd questions that 'received wisdom' in a recent article. He argues that observation is far superior to theory. Whenever an observed fact contradicts a theory, the latter has to give way. We need to re-think and find a better explanation that fits all of the observations.

Boyd also challenges Einstein's Relativity. He says it fails the test of Popper's Criteria for Reliability in the Sciences.

His conclusion: We need to return to reality, even in physics, and even at the expense of tearing down a holy of holies like Einstein's Relativity.

Empirical Science: Back to Reality!

Science is based on the principle of Cause and Effect. We observe an effect. (Something happens, or some event is observed.) What caused it? Then, on finding out, we want to know, "What caused that?", going from cause to cause, looking for the actual origination of things. This succession of asking the same question, at every point in the sequence, is a process which is apparently without end. (Though there may be some end-points reached eventually, in some regards.)

"What caused it?" is the primary and most fundamental question in science. What causes that observable event to happen? In fact, this question is primary to existence and to life experience. We are always asking questions in our lives, such as: Where did that come from? Why did that happen? What started it? Who started it? Why did they do that? What was the origination of that (event)?

These are all varieties of the same question: What caused it, actually? Because we know that until we find out what is the cause of some experience, the origination of it, we may be experiencing the same painful experience over and over again, until we learn to avoid the results of that cause, or cease performing that particular action. Or we may be missing the same pleasant experience, time after time, until we learn how to get it to happen again.

Cause and effect. This principle is used and applied by all Life and all forms of Consciousness, continuously. Knowing the cause of a thing or event is fundamental to existence. Nothing can live without applying this principle of cause and effect, at every opportunity. So learning about cause and effect is a natural condition, and is crucial to all Life. So, doing "science" (in terms of cause and effect) is a natural behavior.

The proverbial tale of Newton and the apple that bonked him on the head (it never happened, really) leading to Newton's discovery of the Law of Gravitational Attraction, is an example of how exploring and examining our experiences in order to find what is the origin of the given observable event, results in reliable understandings about how Reality actually works.

Given a known cause, we can observe that a known effect is always resulting from that same cause...

May 4, 2010

This article is a continuation of an earlier post that contains parts I and II of Don Hotson's article titled "Dirac's Equation and the Sea of Negative Energy". You can find the earlier post by following this link.

To give you an idea of what the argument is, here's the introduction to part III of Don Hotson's article:

Introduction

The preceding two-part article published in Infinite Energy 44 and 45 (see web links to both documents in Bill Zebuhr's Introduction) was entirely predicated on the proposition that a true physics must be based on simplicity and causality. If Dirac's equation means what it says--that it describes everything that waves or every possible particle--it arguably provides the first basis, simplicity: the universe must be built of the four kinds of electron which are the roots of the equation.

We have shown at least plausible ways this might happen, ways that solve the glaring problems with conventional physics. Moreover, we have shown direct contact, causal solutions to the problems of the "electromagnetic field" and gravitation, in which we have shown that both represent physical, non-local structures, responses the Big BEC (Bose-Einstein condensate) must make to balance imbalances and maintain its own integrity.

There are a number of developments, unmentioned in Parts 1 and 2, which greatly strengthen the case presented there. First, the Nobelist Dr. Norman Ramsey convinced his colleagues that negative absolute temperatures made thermodynamic sense.1 Since it is the quantity of positive energy in a substance that gives it its positive energy temperature scale, it should be a perfectly obvious corollary that negative energy must be a prerequisite for negative absolute temperatures.

This complements our symmetry arguments, and the fact that both the energy equation and Dirac's equation have negative as well as positive roots.

Dr. Benni Reznik of Tel Aviv University has demonstrated that the "vacuum" as a whole violates Bell's inequalities, and so acts like a BEC. (Bell's inequalities, and the now voluminous proofs thereof, show that two particles or photons, created in the same event, remain "entangled" with each other, sharing the same wave function, no matter how far apart they may move. Thus an action on one instantaneously causes a complimentary change in the other.)

Dr. Reznik demonstrates that two unentangled probes, inserted into the "vacuum" at random distances, rapidly become phase-entangled. This is behavior one would expect from a BEC, not a "vacuum," and can hardly be understood except in terms of a universal BEC. Since the Dirac papers insist that the "vacuum" is a universal BEC, this represents an immense verification of its thesis.

This is only one of a number of demonstrations, recent and ancient, that entanglement and superluminal effects are real and fundamental factors. For instance, it has been known since Laplace that gravitation must act much faster than light, or the earth/sun system would form a "couple" and the earth would spiral off into space. That gravitation acts almost instantaneously has been shown by studies of contact binary stars, which show that it must act many orders of magnitude faster than light. Astronomer Dr. Tom Van Flandern has shown that General Relativity, though it gives lip service to the "light speed limit," simply goes on to assume instantaneous "changes in the curvature of space" in its equations, and so is non-local.

Further, it has been known for decades that electromagnetism acts faster than light, according to a whole series of experimental results starting with the Sherwin-Rawcliffe experiment and continuing with those of the Graneaus and Pappas. These experiments all show that changes in the electromagnetic field must propagate much faster than light, apparently instantaneously, so that a moving charge has no "left-behind potential hill." Thus changes in electromagnetic potential must propagate apparently instantaneously over any distance.

A BEC has been shown by laboratory experiments to be all one thing, so that an action on one end of a BEC causes an instantaneous reaction at the other end. Therefore a universal BEC is the only plausible explanation for these burgeoning superluminal effects.